If a police witness disobeys a subpoena issued on behalf of either the prosecution or the defense, is he an agent of counsel or not a police officer?

Defendant next asserts that the police are an arm of the government and of the prosecutorial function, that, consequently, if a police witness disobeys a subpoena, the resulting detriment and delay are chargeable to plaintiff and not to defendant. Here, we think defendant overstates the authority of a public prosecutor in relation to peace officers and other public employees, and exaggerates the prosecutor's ability to obtain their appearance in court by means other than court process. We also think defendant overstates the authority and responsibility of a peace officer in the conduct of a public prosecution. Once an accusation reaches the sphere of the courts, authority over the conduct of proceedings lies with the courts and its judicial officers and not with the police. Although at an earlier investigatory stage the police often represent the full force of public authority and possess the capacity through their delicts to bind or estop the public weal, such is not the case after the public prosecutor has filed an accusation in court, and the court has arraigned the defendant. From that moment on, the court assumes full jurisdiction over the cause, further proceedings are under the control of the court and its judicial officers, and the police function as no more than custodial officers, investigative aides, or prospective witnesses. If a police officer disregards a subpoena issued on behalf of either the prosecution or the defense, he defaults as a witness and not as an agent of counsel. Although a police officer is usually employed and paid by some public entity, so is the prosecutor, the public defender, even the judge who presides, and the mere fact of public employment does not make a police witness a judicial officer (Pen.Code, 1050) or make him an agent of the prosecutor with authority to bind the State of California on the matter of speedy trial. (Cf. Neigel v. Superior Court (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 373, 378, 140 Cal.Rptr. 113, policeman not a public officer for all purposes.) As noted earlier, counsel who prosecute or defend a criminal cause are not required to anticipate a police witness' disobedience of a subpoena. When such disobedience occurs, it can [101 Cal.App.3d 562] constitute good cause for a continuance, if, as here, the trial court so concludes.